Finley v. Farmers Insurance Company Inc
Filing
28
ORDER denying (21) Motion to Remand to State Court in case 5:11-cv-00514-HE; denying (21) Motion to Remand to State Court in case 5:11-cv-00513-HE; denying (17) Motion to Remand to State Court in case 5:11-cv-00529-HE; denying (15) Motion to Remand t o State Court in case 5:11-cv-00536-HE; denying (15) Motion to Remand to State Court in case 5:11-cv-00537-HE; denying (15) Motion to Remand to State Court in case 5:11-cv-00588-HE; denying (16) Motion to Remand to State Court in case 5:11-cv-00598-H E; denying (12) Motion to Remand to State Court in case 5:11-cv-00622-HE; denying (12) Motion to Remand to State Court in case 5:11-cv-00628-HE; denying (17) Motion to Remand to State Court in case 5:11-cv-00679-HE; denying (17) Motion to Remand to State Court in case 5:11-cv-00678-HE; denying (18) Motion to Remand to State Court in case 5:11-cv-00685-HE; See order for specifics. Signed by Honorable Joe Heaton on 08/05/2011. (lam)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
JENNIFER FINLEY,
Plaintiff,
vs.
FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY
INC.,
Defendant.
MARILYN MALINDA LENOX,
Plaintiff,
vs.
FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY
INC.,
Defendant.
MARK JONES,
Plaintiff,
vs.
FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY
INC.,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
NO. CIV-11-0513-HE
NO. CIV-11-0514-HE
NO. CIV-11-0529-HE
SHARON MOJICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY
INC.,
Defendant.
JONIE THREATT,
Plaintiff,
vs.
FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY
INC.,
Defendant.
CARTIUS DOWNEY,
Plaintiff,
vs.
FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY
INC.,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
2
NO. CIV-11-0536-HE
NO. CIV-11-0537-HE
NO. CIV-11-0588-HE
DON HAGER, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY,
INC.,
Defendants.
NORMAN LEMONIK,
Plaintiff,
vs.
FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY
INC.,
Defendant.
VINCE GARCIA, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY
INC.,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
3
NO. CIV-11-0598-HE
NO. CIV-11-0622-HE
NO. CIV-11-0628-HE
SHIRLEY JACKSON,
Plaintiff,
vs.
FOREMOST INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.
RICHARD WARREN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
FOREMOST INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.
MARK SHEEN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
FOREMOST INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
NO. CIV-11-0678-HE
NO. CIV-11-0679-HE
NO. CIV-11-0685-HE
ORDER
These cases, removed from state court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, all involve
breach of contract and bad faith claims asserted against Farmers Insurance Company
(“FICO”) and Foremost Insurance Company (“Foremost”).1 Plaintiffs allege Farmers
1
The court will refer to the defendants simply as “Farmers.”
4
mishandled insurance claims they submitted for property damage resulting from storms in
Oklahoma in 2009 and 2010. Plaintiffs have moved to remand, arguing that Farmers is a
citizen of Oklahoma because it has its principal place of business in this state and that
diversity jurisdiction therefore does not exist.2 The cases were transferred to the undersigned
judge for purposes of resolving the citizenship issue. As the matter could not be resolved on
the basis of the parties’ briefs,3 an evidentiary hearing was held on August 4, 2011, to
determine whether the parties are diverse.
“The burden of persuasion for establishing jurisdiction, of course, remains on the
party asserting it.” Hertz Corp. v. Friend, ___ U.S. __, ___ , 130 S.Ct. 1181, 1194 (2010).
As defendants removed the actions, they had to show by a preponderance of the evidence
that federal jurisdiction exists. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court concluded
defendants had met their burden.
The Supreme Court recently clarified the meaning of the phrase “principal place of
business,” as used in 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The court concluded it is “best read as referring to
the place where a corporation’s officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation’s
activities.” Hertz, 130 S.Ct. at 1193. The corporation’s “nerve center” should “normally be
2
A corporation is “deemed to be a citizen of any State by which it has been incorporated
and of the State where it has its principal place of business.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). Plaintiff
did not dispute that FICO is incorporated in Kansas and Foremost is incorporated in Michigan.
3
In Hertz Corp. v. Friend, ___ U.S. __, ___ , 130 S.Ct. 1181, 1195 (2010) the Supreme
Court “reject[ed] suggestions such as ... that the mere filing of a form like the Securities and
Exchange Commission’s Form 10–K listing a corporation’s ‘principal executive offices’ would,
without more, be sufficient proof to establish a corporation’s ‘nerve center.’”
5
the place where the corporation maintains its headquarters.” Id.
Plaintiffs argued that Farmers’ nerve center is in Oklahoma because that is where a
large portion of its operations occur – its Help Point Claims Center, which provides support
to over 10 million policy holders nationwide and employs over 1500 workers, is located in
Oklahoma City.4 However, the focus under Hertz is not where the bulk of a company’s work
is done, but the actual “center of overall direction, control and coordination.” Id. at 1194.
Through the testimony of Edwin Burgos, senior corporate counsel for Farmers Group
Inc. and assistant secretary for both FICO and Foremost, and defense Exhibit 3, defendants
established that the “nerve center” for FICO is located in either Kansas or California.5 Mr.
Burgos testified that FICO has twelve principal officers who, with one exception,6 work in
either California or Kansas and conduct and oversee corporate business out of those two
states. None of FICO’s seven directors reside in Oklahoma. FICO lists its Olathe, Kansas
office as its principal place of business on its Articles of Incorporation. Defense Exhibit 1.
Mr. Burgos’ unrefuted testimony, combined with defense Exhibit 4, also demonstrated
that Foremost’s principal place of business is located in Michigan. Ten of Foremost’s
4
Defendants established at the hearing that the call center in Oklahoma City is owned by
Farmers Insurance Exchange (“FIE”). It provides services for FIE and its subsidiaries, which
include Farmers Insurance Company, Inc. and Foremost Insurance Company.
5
The Supreme Court stated in Hertz that a corporation’s nerve center “is a single place.”
Id. at 1193. While it was not clear whether FICO’s principal place of business is in California
or Kansas, defendants established that the company’s nerve center is not in Oklahoma. That is
sufficient to allow the court to determine whether the parties are diverse for purposes of subject
matter jurisdiction.
6
One officer resides in Oklahoma, but works out of Pennsylvania.
6
eighteen officers reside in Michigan, with the others living in California, Florida and Ohio.
Those officers, he testified, direct and control corporate operations from the state of
Michigan. None of Foremost’s directors are located in Oklahoma. Six reside in California
and one lives in Michigan. Foremost’s Articles of Incorporation specifies that “its principal
office for the transaction of business” is in Michigan. Foremost’s response, Defendant’s
Exhibit 4, Doc. #24-4.
In Hertz the Supreme Court expressly rejected the argument Plaintiffs advanced here
– that the jurisdictional determination is based on the public’s view of the company’s
principal place of business.7 The “nerve center” test the Court adopted “ points courts in a
single direction, towards the center of overall direction, control, and coordination.” Hertz,
130 S.Ct. 1194.
As defendants’ uncontested evidence established that FICO’s and
Foremost’s highest level officers work and make corporate decisions in Kansas, California
and Michigan, the defendants’ nerve centers or principal places of business are in those
states, not Oklahoma. Because the parties are of diverse citizenship the court denied
plaintiffs’ motions to remand.
At the conclusion of the hearing defendants indicated they might seek an award of the
attorney’s fees and costs they incurred in conjunction with plaintiffs’ motions to remand.
Defendants were instructed, if they decide to pursue fee requests, to file their motions and
7
Although the Court recognized that “the use of a ‘nerve center test may in some cases
produce results that seem to cut against the basic rationale for 28 U.S.C. § 1332,” it concluded
that was “the price the legal system must pay to avoid overly complex jurisdictional
administration while producing the benefits that accompany a more uniform legal system.”
Hertz, 130 S.Ct. at 1194
7
supporting briefs within seven days. Plaintiffs then have seven days to respond.
Accordingly, the motions to remand in each of the captioned cases are DENIED. The
court will retain jurisdiction over all the cases for the limited purpose of deciding the
attorney’s fees issue, if necessary. Subject to the reserved fee issue, the following cases are
hereby transferred to the originally assigned judges:
To the Honorable Lee R. West:
Jones v. Farmers Insurance Company, Inc., CIV-11-529-HE
Downey v. Farmers Insurance Company, Inc., CIV-11-588-HE
Sheen v. Foremost Insurance Company, CIV-11-685-HE
To the Honorable Vicki Miles-LaGrange;
Mojica v. Farmers Insurance Company, Inc., CIV-11-536-HE
Threatt v. Farmers Insurance Company, Inc., CIV-11-537-HE
To the Honorable Stephen Friot
Jackson v. Foremost Insurance Company, CIV-11-678-HE
To the Honorable David L. Russell
Warren v. Foremost Insurance Company, CIV-11-679-HE
All other cases not so transferred remain with undersigned pursuant to the original
assignment of cases.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 5th day of August, 2011.
8
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?